Candor Solutions, LLC (15PTDE22Q00000007)

B-420856,B-420856.2,B-420856.4,B-420856.5 Oct 06, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights TekSynap Corporation, of Reston, Virginia, and Candor Solutions, LLC, of McLean, Virginia, protest the award of a contract to Inserso Corporation, of Vienna, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 15PTDE22Q00000007, issued by the Department of Justice for enterprise infrastructure management and customer support services. TekSynap protests that the agency unreasonably evaluated the proposals of TekSynap, Inserso, and Candor. Candor protests that the agency unreasonably evaluated its and Inserso's proposals. Both protesters challenge the agency's best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protests. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: TekSynap Corporation; Candor Solutions, LLC File: B-420856; B-420856.2; B-420856.4; B-420856.5 Date: October 6, 2022 Elizabeth N. Jochum, Esq., Michael J. Slattery, Esq., and Samarth Barot, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, for TekSynap Corporation, and Jon D. Levin, Esq., W. Brad English, Esq., Emily Chancey, Esq., and Nicholas P. Greer, Esq., Maynard Cooper & Gale, for Candor Solutions, LLC, the protesters. Leslie Edelstein, Esq., Dawn Stern, Esq., Richard P. Rector, Esq., and David R. Lacker, Esq., DLA Piper LLP, for Inserso Corporation, the intervenor. Jason P. Cooley, Esq., Christopher Henshaw, Esq., and Nathanial Kenser, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protests that agency unreasonably evaluated proposals are denied where evaluation is consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. 2. Protests that agency performed unreasonable price/technical tradeoff are denied where source selection official reviewed evaluation documents, independently assessed proposals, and concluded that the awardee submitted a superior technical proposal which was worth a slight price premium. 3. In conducting price/technical tradeoff, source selection official was not required to find protester’s proposal overall superior to the awardee’s proposal simply because its proposal was considered superior under one factor, albeit the most highly weighted non-price factor. DECISION TekSynap Corporation, of Reston, Virginia, and Candor Solutions, LLC, of McLean, Virginia, protest the award of a contract to Inserso Corporation, of Vienna, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 15PTDE22Q00000007, issued by the Department of Justice for enterprise infrastructure management and customer support services. TekSynap protests that the agency unreasonably evaluated the proposals of TekSynap, Inserso, and Candor. Candor protests that the agency unreasonably evaluated its and Inserso’s proposals. Both protesters challenge the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision.[1] We deny the protests. BACKGROUND On April 6, 2022, the agency issued the solicitation under the National Institutes of Health Information Technology Acquisition and Assessment Center (NITAAC), Chief Information Office, Solutions and Partners 3 (CIO–SP3) government-wide acquisition contract (GWAC).[2] The agency sought information technology (IT) support services to assist the Office of Chief Information Officer (“OCIO”), Office of Justice Programs, with various responsibilities, including customer and end-user support, mobile and audio/visual services, management of the networked IT infrastructure, virtual desktop services, printing services, and cloud infrastructure services.[3] RFP at 41, 43. The agency conducted the procurement using the procedures of FAR 16.505.[4] Memorandum of Law/Contracting Officer’s Statement (MOL/COS) at 1. The solicitation contemplated the award of a single time-and-materials task order for services specified in the statement of work for an eight-month base period, and four twelve-month option periods. RFP at 38. The solicitation provided that the contract would be awarded on the basis of a best-value tradeoff considering price and the following three non-price factors listed in descending order of importance: technical approach; key personnel resume; and past performance. For award purposes, price was considered less important than the non-price factors separately or combined. RFP at 39. The technical approach and key personnel factors were assigned an adjectival rating, and past performance was assigned a confidence rating.[5] Price was evaluated for completeness, realism, and reasonableness. Id. at 38. The agency received 10 proposals.